discover_provider_capabilities

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden; it does disclose the categories of information returned (support status, access requirements, fragility), which is meaningful behavioral context for a discovery tool. It does not state that the call is read-only/side-effect free, whether it hits the network per provider, or how results are shaped, leaving gaps an agent would want closed.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

One front-loaded sentence with the verb first and no filler; every clause adds a distinct information category. It is terse to the point of under-specification rather than verbose, which is the right shape but leaves little room for guidance.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a one-parameter, no-output-schema, no-annotation discovery tool, the description covers what is returned at a high level but not how to interpret or act on it (e.g., what "fragility" means for a downstream call, or default behavior for the optional provider). Adequate but missing the interpretive context that makes a discovery tool actionable.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The single parameter has 0% schema description coverage, but its enum values (linkedin, naukri) are echoed in the description text, so the agent can map the argument to a provider. The description does not say the parameter is optional or what happens when it is omitted (all providers vs. error), which is the main semantic gap.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description gives a specific verb ("Discover") and a specific subject (runtime support, access requirements, fragility for LinkedIn and Naukri operations), so the agent can tell this is a capability-probing tool rather than a search or mutation tool. It does not explicitly name which sibling it complements (e.g., the preview_* / execute_confirmed_mutation tools that would consume its output), which keeps it below a 5.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Usage is only implied: the word "Discover" plus "operations" suggests calling this before attempting LinkedIn or Naukri actions, but the description never says when to call it, whether it should precede mutations, or what to do with the result. No exclusions or alternative tools are mentioned.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.